Jackson says that I am driven by the desire to “condemn” and “criticize” women’s sexual behavior. I have seized on the campus rape industry as an “excuse,” she claims, for venting my disapproval of female promiscuity. Not only am I censorious, I am also in the grips of a sexist double standard: I condemn behavior in women that I condone in men.

These are ludicrous charges. I can assure Ms. Jackson that it is of no concern to me how students, male or female, choose to conduct their sex lives, so long as they don’t put themselves forward as “rape victims” after a sexual encounter that they undertook voluntarily and participated in with apparent consent. I use the terms “sluttish” and “promiscuous” descriptively, to refer to the type of behavior that leads to the following dilemma, assumed by Columbia’s Go Ask Alice health website to be perfectly normal: A girl suspects that her drunken sexual encounter with a guy ended in intercourse. But her connection to him is so tenuous that it would be too “awkward and embarrassing” to actually have a conversation with him the next day to find out exactly what happened. Perhaps Ms. Jackson would be less exercised had I used the term “low-threshold-partnering,” or some such. She is welcome to offer alternative labels.

Fortunately, few students do label themselves as “rape victims” following a drunken hook-up, demonstrating a far better understanding of personal responsibility than the feminist bureaucracy that dominates campus administrations. My critique was not directed at the numerous participants in the hook-up culture who do so without melodrama, but rather at the campus rape industry and its patent hypocrisy. I offered the suggestion that greater sexual restraint would be a sure-fire prophylactic against what the industry calls “rape” as a way of calling the industry’s bluff. If the promoters of the campus “rape epidemic” conceit really believed their propaganda — believed, in other words, the astounding claim that up to one-quarter of female students would be the actual or attempted victims of the second most heinous crime after murder — surely those rape bureaucrats would do everything within their power to protect the potential victims. And the surest way of not getting “raped” is to not involve yourself in a blotto hook-up in the first place. This is not a moral imperative; it is a purely prudential one. As I proposed in a thought experiment to Mary Koss, the researcher who started the campus rape industry, if a real rapist had struck even two times on a campus, it is inconceivable that administrators would not be warning women to stay away from the areas of attack at night, regardless of whether women have a “right” to be in those areas, or whether it would be their fault if they were attacked. Responsible adults would put aside such notions of “right” and “fault” in order to preserve young women from the devastating crime of rape.

Yet when I suggest to campus sexual assault administrators that they could stop the “rape pandemic” overnight if they persuaded girls to exercise more prudence in their mating habits, I inevitably receive responses like the following (quoted verbatim): “I am uncomfortable with the idea of ‘recommending that female students exercise more modesty and restraint’ — this indicates that if they are raped it could be their fault — it is never their fault.” Or: “Yes, modesty would have a certain impact, but who’s responsible?”

Let us hope that administrators refuse to take the most practical action to ending campus rape because they secretly know that what is happening on campuses is not really rape, but something much more ambiguous and much less traumatic than real rape. The alternative is too shocking to contemplate: these self-professed women’s advocates really do believe that a drunken hookup is rape, and yet are withholding from female students advice on the most efficacious way to prevent such a fate simply in order to preserve the feminist establishment’s ability to blame men for systemic violence against women.

Ms. Jackson faults me for allegedly “condemning” female behavior while giving boys a free pass. This charge is irrelevant, since my goal in writing the article was not to “condemn” hook-up behavior, but rather to expose the bad faith of the campus rape industry. But since she insists in reading sexist censoriousness into merely descriptive terms, let me restore the language that she carefully removed from her purported money quote:

So what reality does lie behind the campus rape industry? A booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-night, stands. Students in the sixties demanded that college administrators stop setting rules for fraternization. … The colleges meekly complied and opened a Pandora’s box of boorish, sluttish behavior that gets cruder each year. Do the boys, riding the testosterone wave, act thuggishly toward the girls? You bet! Do the girls try to match their insensitivity? Indisputably.

Jackson ignores other descriptions — oops, “condemnations” — of male thuggishness throughout my piece. But in any case, a focus on the female contribution to what the campus rape industry calls rape is perfectly appropriate, since it is overwhelmingly females who are deemed or deem themselves the victims. If males cried rape after a seemingly consensual sexual encounter, I or any other reasonable person would also inquire about the behavior that contributed to that outcome. How ludicrous can those charges be? A former campus rape investigator reported to me a typical rape charge: the girl had offered her anus to a fellow student and he ended up in her vagina instead. He promptly apologized for his mistake and corrected it, but according to the girl, she had been raped nevertheless. She accused the rape investigator of dereliction of duty for not acknowledging her victim status. Such complaints were typical. When men start to make them, they will be no less open to analysis.

Jackson’s confusion about scare quotes and irony is beyond redemption.

The vast majority of PJ Media readers understood my arguments without strain, to judge by their response to Jackson’s critique. Why didn’t Jackson herself? I can only speculate. Perhaps her tortured effort to find a sexist double standard in my piece grows out of the sad dilemma of the modern feminist. Raised on the idea that victimhood is a source of empowerment, today’s crusading feminist is in rather a bind. Not only is she not discriminated against, she is discriminated in favor of. Every elite institution in the country is frantically scouring the horizon for women to put in the corporate boardroom, among law partnerships, on the masthead of editorial boards, on the pages of magazines and newspapers, on television talk shows, and on university faculties, inter alia. This situation is hard to square with the claim of oppressed status. And so it becomes imperative to fabricate pseudo-bias where none exists. Perhaps Jackson has developed the exquisitely-tuned sexism sensor cultivated in the academy; I don’t know.

For the record, my overriding goal in writing “The Campus Rape Myth” was to illustrate a larger point. The campus rape and sex promotion industries are just symptoms of the university’s tragic flight from its one true purpose: cultivating in students a passion for knowledge and beauty.

89 Comments, 89 Threads

I can assure Ms. Jackson that it is of no concern to me how students, male or female, choose to conduct their sex lives, so long as they don’t put themselves forward as “rape victims” after a sexual encounter that they undertook voluntarily and participated in with apparent consent.

But as you yourself say, they are not doing so. So what’s the problem? Those phones aren’t ringing? So what’s the problem? Girls are not, in any large numbers, “crying rape”, any more than men are? So what’s the problem?

Why go on at such length and with such censoriousness about this booze-fuelled hook-up culture if it is of no concern to you?

Because it is of concern to you. Your disapproval is evident, and it is one-sided. Only in that one paragraph that you quote do you refer to boys’ “acting thuggishly” and even then the implication is because the girls get drunk and let them. Apart from that, all the condemnation is of the girls.

If, as you now claim, all you are concerned about is the message put out by the “rape industrialists”, why do you not advise them to tell both men and women to avoid drunken hook-ups? That way the women will avoid “rape” (which isn’t happening) and the men will avoid accusations of “rape”(which aren’t happening). But no, this hypothetical “advice”, like the disapproval which prompted it, is aimed solely at women.

My accusation of double standard stands. Don’t let it bother you. You are not alone. Your view is shared by most, but not all, of the commenters on my piece, and a large proportion of the Muslim and other non-developed world..

Men are under attack in this politically correct society. White men are especially vulnerable. This is why they should look upon the Democrats as their enemy. The university “elites” control this politically party and push its legislators to pass anti-men laws. Any man who votes for the typical Democrat is behaving in a self destructive manner.

Mary Jackson, I do not think you are not an idiot (though I may be wrong), so I have to assume you are simply behaving dishonestly after after having lost an argument. You really don’t have a case anymore, and reading you pretending not to understand Ms. MacDonald’s point, your bahaviour is verging on farce (there must be a play somewhere about a woman who feverishly insists that she carries the argument when, in fact everyone around her thinks the contrary–to the great amusement of the audience). You are arguing in circles around the periphery because you seem to think that through directionless quibbling and repetition and restatement, you can distract the reader from what little remains of your original objections. But then again, maybe you really are that thick-headed.

When you have about 25% of young women with incurable STDs (affecting their future relationships and fertility), many with unexplained depression and anxiety, maybe the hookup culture should be re-examined and young women encouraged to respect themselves enough to limit the number of sexual partners they have.

The prisons are full of men with life-long sentences in prison, on parole, or probation for a mulitude of sexually-related behaviors/misbehaviors, most of which were plea bargains because when faced with life-in-prison without parole, most plea bargained rather than fight it out in court and risk the threat of life-in-prison. Don’t you think, Ms. Jackson, that a man should at least be afforded a reasonable chance at defending an encounter rather than accepting guilt to avoid life-in-prison? The woman certainly should never be raped. An inappropriate touch or forced rape lands a man facing life-in-prison, isn’t that a bit unfair Ms. Jackson?

Go right for the ad-hominem attack, Ms. Jackson! those who disagree with you are certainly comparable to people in cultures that practice female genital mutilation, stoning of rape victims, and honor killings of female relatives!

Now, let me try to explain this:

Even though there is no huge upswell in reported rapes, there is a rape industry on campuses in this country, that thrives on trying to redefine “rape” downward. The rape industry justifies itself, even in the absence of actual complaints, by citing statistics such as the 1/4 of college females are or will be rape victims. They get to that 25% by counting incidents that have never before been considered rape – such as morning-after remorse, or the male participant failing to get explicit permission from the female at each and every stage of intimate contact. The “problem” is that the rape industry, while professing to be helping rape victims, is in actuality infantilizing college-age young people. Because the crisis centers and interventionists are indoctrinated in the feminist mantra that anything male is bad, they, for the most part, deal with females. Thus Ms. Mac Donald’s understandable focus (though not exclusive focus) on members of the female sex.

In fact, she several times mentions boorish male behavior in the original column. I’d like to know just what level of gender-equity you would like to see in a column about rape. Should the female-male criticism ratio be 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, 3:2, 11:13? Is it possible, in your opinion, to write critically of one sex without also criticizing the other?

By taking such an unmovable stand about questioning why Ms. Mac Donald did not equally suggest to the “rape industrialists” that they should tell both women AND men “to avoid drunken hookups,” you make yourself appear to be an unrepentant anti-male bigot, who needs to have any criticism of female behavior followed by a disclaimer like, “men are no better.”

jackson’s entire mindset, like that of the culture at large, is absurd. if there is one zone of human relations where one is most likely to “mugged by reality,” this is it. even as a beneficiary of the sexual promiscuity of the contemporary era, it is obviously disgusting and distracts from the genuine pursuit: finding love. if you do not regard that as the primary purpose, you are scum. if you do not want to raise a family, and you argue that your way is better or equal, you are scum. Period, end of discussion. unfortunately, it is the women of the present generation who are to blame: it is they who control the situation. how many men here have dated, are dating, or are married to girls who’ve been with 20 or 30 guys? who have had abortions? who have std’s, to say nothing of tattoos and tongue piercings? is this really preferable? is this really a freer, more authentic way of living? i think to say it is simply a socially-acceptable form of rank bullsh&t. whatever happened to the notion of the civilizing sex? the social and legal prohibitions against male sexual misconduct are well-known and rigidly, almost hysterically enforced – hysterically, in light of their counterparts’ behavior. it is beyond question – it is even so common and well-known as to be beyond intellectual interest – to discuss such male misconduct. and after all, that is not what has changed: what has changed is women’s allowing it an outlet, and society’s indulgance, if not encouragement of it. i’ll say it a thousand times: sex & te city is about UNHAPPY WOMEN. STOP EMULATING THEM, YOU MORONS. they should be laughed at and scorned, not idealized, not even for consolation. if this all sounds rather extreme, it is only because i see the effect on the girls i know, i hear their words, i see how this influences how they think, i see the decisions they make. are they happier? no. at least acknowledging it would be a reasonable beginning, and it wouldn’t inspire such a snitty tone from people like me.

As the post from the reader Mike correctly identifies, “…you make yourself appear to be an unrepentant anti-male bigot, who needs to have any criticism of female behavior followed by a disclaimer like, “men are no better.”

Females have the added ‘ability’ to become pregnant, with all the responsibilities that comes with it. Thus when deciding on a course of action re: ‘hooking-up’, then YES as shocking as it may seem, because females have more on the line then they should in fact use more caution and better judgment as it relates to the increased risk.

Think of it this way: If two people play the roulette wheel – neither of whom seem to know the odds of the game – and both play the same number, but one only plays a hundred dollars, while the other one a thousand, which one should be cautioned more? Which one stands to be risking more? The same is true with the hook-up mentality: two people play the game in a drunken, wasted state not fully thinking about the consequences but one has far more to consider come tomorrow than the other.

Since this is the case, why does it shock you that those who are truly concerned about the well being of those who are risking more in this behavior are addressing those more at risk? While it does take two to tango, only one will be carrying for 9 months, or (sigh) aborting.

Add onto this the idea of the ‘rape industry’ as identified by Ms. Mac Donald. Females have a convenient way to remove the label of being a slut simply by accusing her partner and there are plenty of people at the universities ready to accept such testimony as fact far before trial. I need only point to Duke and Nifong as evidence. It would also appear that there is an effort by some in the rape industry to make sure there is a steady supply of victims in order to keep the idea that men are horrible alive and well in the mind of those being ‘educated’. Ms. Jackson must feel this way since if the author does not constant state so, Ms. Jackson seems to struggle to cope with the fact that men are not being vilified every sentence.

Well, every single comment on this thread embraces the double standard. So why is Heather Mac Donald so worried when people say she has one?

The double standard is a time-honoured concept. It is universal in more primitive, non-Western cultures, especially Islam. I am surprised and disappointed to see it so much in evidence on this site, but there you go.

I’m a bit confused. First it’s argued that there is no campus rape crisis and the phones are dead; lots of money wasted waiting for complaints that never come in. But now I’m told the most ludicrous rape charge (“I was aiming for her a-hole, Your Honor, I swear!!”) is “typical,” which suggests that there are quite a few rape complaints coming in. So which is it?

Don’t you think, Ms. Jackson, that a man should at least be afforded a reasonable chance at defending an encounter rather than accepting guilt to avoid life-in-prison?

My answer is, yes of course he should. Please see my detailed article at New English Review on rape and the law, which I think you will find is fair to all parties.

Rape is not an easy thing to discuss. It tends to polarise opinion. But I would recommend that anyone who thinks I am a stereotypical feminist reads my article above and also my blog posts (for which click on my name).

Ms. Jackson, exactly where is the double standard? Is it a double standard to critique one sex’s behavior, but not another’s? Must all references to one sex or another be split 50/50? Is there some other proportion that is acceptable? Does the ‘double standard’ test apply to some topics but not to others? Which ones qualify and which do not?

From your first comment, you seem upset that Ms. Mac Donald did not advise rape crisis centers to admonish men, as well as women, about the potential sexual consequences of getting drunk. Given that rape crisis centers cater almost exclusively to women, just what good would be done by such an advisory? (With the obvious exception of stroking your sense of fair play?

Why shouldn’t an article concerning rape – a crime whose victims are over 90% female – speak predominantly to the female sex? Why this insistence on including men in a discussion which concerns women in such a greater proportion?

I do not see a double standard in Ms. Mac Donald’s writing. She is encouraging women to take responsibility for their own safety. This sounds empowering for women: far better than telling them to rely on the police or college counseling and judicial services after the fact. She doesn’t endorse the behavior of men, she doesn’t ignore it completely, but in an article aimed at women, the message would be diluted (or at least made much less readable) by adding “and men, too” throughout.

If you want to address the behavior of men when it comes to rape, please do: obviously some men can be boorish, immoral, and even criminal. But I don’t see how you can insist that men be critiqued in an article that is not directed at men, and more than I could be offended that, in an article about breast cancer, only women are mentioned even though men, too, can get this type of cancer – though at a miniscule rate compared to women.

I reject your assertion that I am embracing a double standard – though you are welcome to try to explain to me why I am wrong. (And ad-hominem attacks like in your previous comments are not argument.)

In your blog at http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/14418, I note that you name-call those who disagree with you, “knuckle-dragging rednecks,” and assert that you have Ms. Mac Donald “rattled.” I don’t know about Ms. Mac Donald, but I’m getting a bit exasperated with this. Make an argument and I’ll read and consider it, but enough with the name-calling!

Well, according to Mac Donald, these “sluts” aren’t victims, are they? They’re not being raped, are they?

There is no reason why Mac Donald’s article should be aimed at women. Why should it be?

It is not directly addressed to college women, but talks about them in the third person, through the hypothetical mouthpiece of “rape industrialists”. This in itself indicates that Mac Donald is not concerned with women’s welfare so much as berating them. And of course, in doing so, she earns the approval of men, as shown on this thread. Her comments reassure men that not all women are like those nasty feminists, and some know how to behave themselves, and let boys be boys.

It takes two to indulge in the kind of drunken hook-ups she criticises. If it isn’t rape then it is 50:50. But if it is rape or “rape”, then the perpetrators are men. If anything, therefore, she should be talking more about what men do than what women do.

If she were talking about a crime committed largely by blacks on whites – mugging, for instance – wouldn’t it be a little odd if all her argument focused on what whites could do to avoid being mugged, and none on what blacks should do to avoid mugging? Mac Donald, on past form, would certainly not do this.

Ironically, Mac Donald, who likes to ally with “superior” whites on other crimes, embraces “inferior” non-Western standards on the matter of rape.

If there was an area known for mugging (black on white, Latino on black, whatever), I wouldn’t go there. If I HAD to be there for some reason, I’d make all kinds of efforts not to draw attention. No rolex on my wrist or fashionable basketball sneakers on my feet.

I think it’s fair to assume that in rape or even consensual “drunk sex”, the men are probably the aggressors. (Even feminists would agree that men and women display distinct sexual behavior) With this mind, it’s not unreasonable to urge women to exercise modesty or preemptive judgement on a promiscous circumstances / men. “Gang rape” and “drug rape” tends to involve men dominating a woman, not the other way around. The burden to be smart in a potential “rape” situation falls more on the woman for this reason, and she should scrutinized a bit if she CHOSE to be a victim, fair disribution of blame notwithstanding.

My campus is hosting an anti rape “man of honor” campaign that trumpets the “1 in 3 women are rape victims” stat. The general tone is unmistakeably one of rebuke and challenge towards the men. “Be a man of honor and respect women for once” sort of a deal. I think it’s overblown, but I take the core message to heart. Although, I could conceivably accuse this movement of “double standard”. What, women can’t be the rapists on campus? Women can’t forcibly rape a MAN at gun point, or drug him? There’s ZERO record of women taking advantage of men? Have we forgotten about white female teachers who rape their underaged male students? Why can’t I tell women that “You share the blame in this issue too, don’t just place the blame on us”?

I see a number of conclusions that you draw from Ms. Mac Donald’s writing, that I do not. I’ll outline my reasoning, and then, if there is no agreement, we can civilly agree to disagree, without castigating the other person. Fair?

First, I don’t recall Ms. Mac Donald calling all women, or all women who engage in drunken sex, “sluts.” She described their behavior as “sluttish,” to be sure, and sometimes it is. Not all the time, or all women, but some women’s behavior, some of the time, can certainly be described as, “sluttish,” don’t you agree? Or is it just too loaded a term? Could we agree on “irresponsible” instead?”

Ms. Mac Donald, in the same paragraph where “sluttish” appears, also describes college sexual behavior as “boorish,” and “thuggish” – terms that apply to the male sex, and which I agree, reflect the behavior of some men, some of the time. In short, the description of (some) female behavior does not stand alone, it is both preceded and followed by descriptions of (some) male behavior. I don’t see that she condones either behavior, much less adopts a ‘boys will be boys’ attitude. “Thuggish” is hardly a condoning word. I see her describing how women can help avoid unwanted sex and its consequences (some of which, like pregnancy, unique to women). I don’t see that advice as unreasonable, any more than it is unreasonable to suggest all kinds of defensive measures against many crimes, some of which advice may infringe on the kind of life we want to live, but which, in the real world, are necessary to avoid injury or loss.

If she were talking about a crime committed largely by blacks on whites – mugging, for instance – wouldn’t it be a little odd if all her argument focused on what whites could do to avoid being mugged, and none on what blacks should do to avoid mugging?

I don’t believe that it would be odd at all. It makes emininent sense to advise people how to keep themselves safe in an unsafe world. Don’t flash large amounts of cash, don’t visibly wear expensive watches, jewelry, etc. in known high-crime areas, don’t walk alone at night. This does not imply culpability on the part of someone who does these things and yet gets mugged, but it does not ignore the fact that there will always be those who will take advantage of a situation. There is nothing we can do to alter that – muggers will always exist. Rapists will always exist. Acknowledging their existence, and advising people how to increase their own safety, does not amount to endorsing muggers and rapists. It is not a double standard to say, “there are bad people out there. Here’s how you can be safer.” I don’t think it’s a double standard to skip the first part, and just say, “here’s how you can be safer.” The latter phrase implies the former – what or who are you trying to be safer from? Bad things and bad people.

I’m thankful, though, that there is not a “mugging industry” that is advertising that muggings are extraordinarily prevalent, let’s say 1 in 3, pumping up their statistics by classifying as a mugging the act of giving a quarter to a bum, then later regretting it.

Well, according to Mac Donald, these “sluts” aren’t victims, are they? They’re not being raped, are they?

According to the rape industry, any incident of unwanted sex is rape, even if it was freely engaged in by both parties and remorse only set in after the fact. Ms. Mac Donald is telling women that they are not passive beings who are at the mercy of men’s animal desires, but that they can control many of the circumstances that the rape industry defines as “rape.” So while not all women who engage in drunken hookups are raped, not getting drunk in the first place pretty much avoids the whole unpleasant situation of waking up next to someone you may or may not know, not knowing what you did or didn’t do. Sounds like common sense to me.

It is not directly addressed to college women, but talks about them in the third person, through the hypothetical mouthpiece of “rape industrialists”. This in itself indicates that Mac Donald is not concerned with women’s welfare so much as berating them. And of course, in doing so, she earns the approval of men, as shown on this thread. Her comments reassure men that not all women are like those nasty feminists, and some know how to behave themselves, and let boys be boys.

While Ms. Mac Donald may not directly address women as you say, I do not agree that it follows that Ms. Mac Donald shows any lack of concern for women’s welfare. She repeats the theme of women taking control of and responsibility for their actions, as opposed to the rape industry’s message of women’s helplessness in the face of men’s carnal lusting. (If 1/3, 1/4, or 1/5 of your peers are raped, as the rape industry claims, and yet the RI does not advise women on how to avoid rape – or acts that meet their definition of rape – in the first place, is that not implying submission to men?) As stated above, acknowledgement that an undesireable behavior exists does not imply endorsement of it, so I do not accept that Ms. Mac Donald is stating that “boys will be boys.”

Could not an analogy be made to the “mugging industry” (MI) hypothesized above, off on a campaign to convince the country that one-third of us will be the victim of a mugging in our lifetimes? Think about it. One-third. One third of your family, one third of your friends, neighbors, your co-workers. But (and this is a big “but”) many of them don’t know that they’ve been mugged. Others have been mugged, but they’re in denial. We need mugging counselors to help them see the truth! To discuss the MI, its inflated statistics, and its questionable motivations, I don’t see how it would be wrong to speak wholly or predominantly to whites. The same advice that applies to whites would also apply to potential mugging victims who are black. Not chastising the muggers does not amount to endorsing them. With some things, including illegal and immoral acts, overt disapproval is not always needed. Most would assume, in a discussion of the supposed MI, that the existence of muggers is not a good thing. Likewise with murder, robbery, assault, and, yes, rape. In these instances it would take an explicit statement, or at the least a clear implication, for a reader to infer that the writer does not disapprove of the perpetrators of the crime in question. I do not see that in Ms. Mac Donald’s writing. If you interpret her writing otherwise, then we’ll just have to disagree on that. But without rancor, please?

Women can’t forcibly rape a MAN at gun point, or drug him? There’s ZERO record of women taking advantage of men? Have we forgotten about white female teachers who rape their underaged male students? Why can’t I tell women that “You share the blame in this issue too, don’t just place the blame on us”?

Where that happens, it is of course wrong. But is it technically, physically possible for a woman to rape a man? If a man isn’t interested, penetration cannot be forced against his will.

Female teachers “raping” their underage male students is wrong and against the law, even if technically it isn’t rape. Of course it should be punished.

Mike – first of all, sluttish is a loaded word. It is only ever used of females, and MacDonald only uses it of females here. “Thuggish” or “boorish” are not nice words, true, but they do not refer to promiscuity – a promiscuity which for Mac Donald turns rape into non-rape. And men’s “boorishness” is testosterone-fuelled – ie they can’t help themselves, especially when encouraged by “slutty” women.

Second, although Mac Donald uses the word “thuggish” in passing, her advice on avoiding “rape” (which she doesn’t believe happens anyway) is not directed at men at all. There is nowhere – nowhere at all – any hint that men should, or even can, change their behaviour. Boys will be boys and girls must fit in round this.

I do not agree that it follows that Ms. Mac Donald shows any lack of concern for women’s welfare. She repeats the theme of women taking control of and responsibility for their actions, as opposed to the rape industry’s message of women’s helplessness in the face of men’s carnal lusting

Her lack of sympathy cries out from this article. Not once does she even acknowledge that date rate can happen. If girls don’t define their experiences as rape then it isn’t rape. But on the rare occasions that they do, they are lying.

The idea that Mac Donald’s advice “empowers” women is laughable – just as laughable as the idea that the veil empowers Muslim women. Mac Donald’s “control” refers only to women controlling themselves, their urges or the way they dress. If they conform to the Stepford-wifey, cashmere-sweatered “good girl” ideal, then they don’t deserve to be raped. Otherwise they are fair game – in fact it isn’t rape at all.

There isn’t a “mugging industry”, but likewise there isn’t a “campus rape industry” that is actually having any effect. Women aren’t crying rape because of it. It is a straw man. Mac Donald uses the “rape industrialists” as the mouthpiece of her purse-lipped, one-sided disapproval of a “sluttiness” she condemns in women but accepts in men.

To sum up, words denoting promiscuity are used only of women. Advice relating to promiscuous or “slutty” behaviour is given only to women. Men’s behaviour is just the way it is, with a hint that if women didn’t act so slutty, men would respect them more.

I think the main point that Ms. MacDonald is trying to make is that the “rape industry” (as she calls it) on campus seems to have come to the point where it wants high rape statistics (which, thankfully, is not necessarily a high incidence of rape) as this improves their political and financial position.

My local fire department does a great job of handling fires that occur in our town – that is, after a fire has started. But they also do an enormous amount of work in prevention: raising awareness of brush and trash hazards, education on proper storage of flammable chemicals, reminders to maintain smoke detectors, reminders to have two escape routes, etc. This is because their first goal is to have fewer fires.

I believe Ms. MacDonald is pointing out that if these groups had as their first goal to have fewer rapes, they would work on prevention as much or more than on helping after a rape has occurred. But this one avenue almost guaranteed to reduce the number of rapes (and “rapes”) is vigorously avoided since it is politically distasteful, as if it implies the victim’s guilt. As if putting together a storm kit makes one responsible for the hurricane.

Women on campus may or may not be able to affect men’s behavior, but they CAN affect their own. They should try to do both. When I was in college, we always had a designated sober person (or two) in our group, even when we walked to a party. How hard is that? How is that suggestion demeaning to women? Isn’t it more demeaning to assert that women can’t do anything or, worse, that they have some obligation to increase their chances of harm so that blame may be “properly” placed?

Your belief that women cannot physically rape men is totally without foundation – women can rape men, and they do. Many men experience involuntary erections, particularly when their genitalia are subjected to physical contact, and thus penetration can occur without the man’s consent. Women can also forcibly penetrate men anally and orally with fingers and objects, which is rape.

For someone with such a strong interest in the issue of rape it would seem your knowledge base is sorely lacking.

Just for the record, in the US the crime is now called “sexual assault” and vaginal penetration is no longer an element of the crime. This allows all sorts of sexually oriented assaults to be treated the same, whether or not actual penetration of a vagina by a penis occurs. This is as it should be. Someone of either sex being “raped” with a broomstick up the anus is certainly the victim of a very serious crime which can be as bad as traditionally defined “rape”, or worse depending on the aggravating circumstances.

A little story from high school, about how a woman can technically rape a man. A guy I knew lost his virginity while he was asleep at a party. He had an erection while he was sleeping, and he woke up to find a girl at the party on top of him naked. Now he didn’t complain because she was apparently rather attractive, but that doesn’t mean that she got where she did consensually. He merely consented after the fact.

first of all, sluttish is a loaded word. It is only ever used of females

It is a loaded word. But is it loaded with truth or falsehood? Well, what does it mean? We can argue that question for a long time, so let me suggest that it means dressing and acting as though one is sexually available. It is applied to women because of the asymmetry we find in the way and degree men and women express sexual desire to each other. In large measure, men seek and women advertise. Not all advertisement is an invitation to sexual encounter; a woman can be pretty or even sexy without appearing available.

If a man blatently attempts to advertise himself as available, he is more likely to be the butt of a joke than to be successful. Men have to use other strategies, and we have words to describe them. If they do not carry the emotional weight, we should ask why.

You can argue all you like about whether this situation is good or bad, but it’s what we have at the moment. And it’s reflected in our language: we have words for what we need to express.

“Thuggish” or “boorish” are not nice words, true, but they do not refer to promiscuity – a promiscuity which for Mac Donald turns rape into non-rape. And men’s “boorishness” is testosterone-fuelled – ie they can’t help themselves.

They describe the character of people who are also drugging themselves with alcohol, which reduces the capacity to judge the difference between “attractive” and “available.”

This loss of judgement applies to women as well as to men. If two women both see themselves as “attractive, not available” (or “not available to Joe, not available to Ed, not available to …”) and both get equally drunk, and if only one of them, when drunk, decides that she is available, what does this say about (a) her commitment to “attractive, not available” and (b) her willingness to get drunk and compromise her own judgement?

You make some good points, Surabol. You post caused me to consider that nearly 100% of the people in prison for sexual assault are male. Using Ms. Jackson’s analysis, this can only be explained as an example of a gross double standard. To rectify this situation, a number of women equal to the number of men in prison for sexual assault must be randomly selected and incarcerated immediately. Since, as some of Ms. Jackson’s allies have stated, up to 99% of men are potential rapists, the same MUST be true of women, therefore selecting a few tens of thousands of women for random imprisonment is not unjust. We can’t have any double standards!

“But is it technically, physically possible for a woman to rape a man? If a man isn’t interested, penetration cannot be forced against his will.”

This reminds me of the old defense attorney trick from the dark old days when, for some strange reason that no one can explain, rapes and crimes generally were less common.

The defense attorney, while questioning the complaining witness, would ask the witness to hold a pencil in her hand. The attorney would then ask the witness to insert the pencil in the hole that he (or she) formed with his thumb and forefinger. Each time the witness tried to insert the pencil, the attorney would quickly move his hand, thus “proving” that penetration was not possible if the complainant resisted sufficiently.

Honestly, Mary, you must purge you mind of these invidious and outmoded double standards!

In the UK rape means penetration of a vagina by a penis without the woman’s consent. That is the legal definition. There are other forms of sexual assault.

Perhaps if all these men don’t want to get “raped” they shouldn’t get drunk and act so sluttish.

Since there is now a chorus of men bleating about how women go around raping men, why aren’t the same men saying that MacDonald should be advising the “rape industrialists” to tell them not to act like tarts?

Since there is now a chorus of men bleating about how women go around raping men, why aren’t the same men saying that MacDonald should be advising the “rape industrialists” to tell them not to act like tarts?

Now you’re just behaving like an idiot. Unlike the other guys, I actually gave you a real story of how a woman technically committed rape according to your own country’s, so now you just jump around beating a strawman to death.

“Since there is now a chorus of men bleating about how women go around raping men, why aren’t the same men saying that MacDonald should be advising the “rape industrialists” to tell them not to act like tarts?”

Who’s bleating about it? You advertised your profound ignorance of human biology by explicitly denying that men could be raped, and you were called on it. Your only response was a pathetic attempt to belittle men who have been victims of female rape. If anyone’s exhibiting a double standard, its most definitely you, Ms Jackson.

Mary Jackson:
“….whereas female victims of male rape are lying sluts who were asking for it?”

Mary, who said that? How many posters said those words? Thats all in your head. Thats why people like you can’t be argued with or reasoned with. You hear what you want to hear and you see what you want to see. You add nothing to adult discourse.

Clearly you are free to pontificate on any subject you wish to, however stick to one topic and at least try to not appear completely disengenuous in doing so. Makes you seem flakey. Your opinion about not caring what sexual frolickings men and women commit during a drink fest is utterly transparent and probably dangerous as well when adding to the equation as well as your love of using termonology such “rape industry” as you try to explain,. Women should Concentual sex is all well and good. In fact I highly recommend it but a “rape industry,” Heather? Are you even aware of what you are saying? I highly doubt it as it doesn’t do what you indend to do which is basically tell women – if you drink you should try to remember that you let some idiot slip you the sausage to get his rocks off while ignoring to make sure you a least enjoyed said sausage, without the slightest bit of prejudice. Do you really get that? Again, i highly doubt it, but that sentiment alone would have been fine enough by itself and i could even agree with you since in all honesty drunk sex, for a woman, is never orgasm producing and chances are highly unsafe (sti wise)because what girl in their right mind would leave it up to a guy to protect himself let alone her with a condom under normal circumstances, and a drunk guy? Forget it.

I am glad the courts think you are an idiot as new consent laws have just taken place.

However, you destroy your debate by adding to your apparent ignorance the usage of a nefarious “rape industry.” I can’t even imagine the need, unless you are really a man using Heather as your name. Who knows. Either way you simply do. not. get. it. on. the. rape. thang.

Maybe you really do NOT know full well that rape can and does indeed take place EVEN under the aforementioned circumstances “consent.” However bright you think you may appear in your own head, all you prove to do by using such a term is to hurt us all. Perhaps, you missed an article amoung many such articles on any number of campuses around our fine country that a fine upstanding young college man was found, much to the disgust of even his friends, finishing up his “concentual sex” with a girl who prior to getting wasted consented yet was now throwing up while he was banging away on top of her and latter stated “omg dude, did you see her throw up haha!”
What a dumb slut right? “Act like a slut, get treated like a slut.” My bad. But you see Heather, there is a reason for your “rape industry.” Gee, can you take a little guess why? No? Didn’t think so. Because Heather, some people take advantage of a good thing. Sex is a good thing. Good under good circumstances. Good, when the safety of one is not put at risk by the gratification of another. And, no, it isn’t always so clear cut, “well we were both drunk and she consented…”

Again, since your article is about drunken sluts and the nefarious discriminatory “rape industry” against the thousands of wrongly accused poor men, it’s a great achievement to the drunk sluts to have a Judicial system who is continually getting it right with regard to rape and fuzzy issues of consent who WILL be there for them if need be, whereas YOU, so pathetically and so obviously continuously get it wrong and are conspicuously absent.

It isn’t any wonder that the men of this thread think you are a hero. To them, you simply are.

From my own website (click on my name for more), here is a comment from a male reader:

“Actually, she’s saying more than “Boys will be boys”. She’s also saying “Girls will be liars”. Liars who will put a boy in jail for a very long time, rather than go through all the hassle and embarrassment of discussing it with the boy, or taking responsibility for their own licentious (in Heather’s fevered mind) behavior.

The way Heather describes these women, I’m suddenly glad that I never dated in college. Who knows what these horny, inebriated, conniving, manipulative deceivers could have done to poor little old me.

She’s wrong, you’re right…I don’t think that women are deceptive or manipulative or slutty or the rest, that’s what Heather is implying. Think through the scenarios she’s describing, and think of what she claims the women are doing, and what their motivation is. It’s not just anti-feminist as you seem to think, it’s misogynistic. She describes the boys as loveable louts; her view of the women is far worse.

I don’t think that women who claim date-rape do so lightly or do so falsely in the vast majority of cases. In fact, it must be very difficult for them to step forward and report the incidents. I think it takes a great deal of courage to face their attacker and to go through the legal process. I feel nothing but compassion and empathy for them.”

There are good men out there – plenty of them. I know many myself.

Interestingly, juries with mainly men are more likely to convict a rapist. Sadly many women – like MacDonald but with more excuse being less educated – try to find reasons for the victim being at fault. If they can say the victim was at fault – for drinking too much, or wearing the wrong clothes, etc – then they can feel that is within their control whether or not they get raped. Nice girls don’t get raped, you see.

Just out of pure curiousity, since a lot of men on this board seem to be citing all this male raping going on, would someone kindly cite some examples in which a physically healthy, non-handicapped man, NOT in an otherwise BDSM situation or physically shackled or having his anus poked with objects… could not physically drop-kick any unwanted vagina from his penis.

Consider your answers a public service to most women and perhaps even some men who think this practice is, at best, hilarious. And i’m not talking about female teachers of minor boys. We’re talking adults here. In all seriousness, please inform us from our cluelessness because right now all I can see is a bunch of men tired of being accused of annoying things their penises get them into.

In the UK, technically, legally, no. Rape is defined as penetration of a vagina by a penis without the woman’s consent. Anything else is sexual assault, which may be serious, but is not legally, technically, rape. I don’t make the laws here.

Legal matters aside, is female rape of males a common problem? Men are stronger than women on average, but still, it can happen. But is it really a common problem?

Cue Mac Donald:

If these men don’t want to be “raped” they shouldn’t get drunk, take their clothes off, go to bed with girls they don’t know, etc etc etc.

I’m waiting to see all the Mac Donald supporters say this. It would be consistent, after all.

And, in Mac Donald speak, men who claim to be raped, are probably making it up. 50% of them are making it up, on Planet Mac D.

Basically, i’m calling complete BS on the prevailing nonsense of all these women forceably raping men with their vaginas, anuses or mouths. Get a life.

Anyway, here’s a big heads-up Heather, yes you Heather, and the self-righteous men-without-a-point, here to benefit from the consciences and brilliance not to mention wonderfull compassion and clearheadedness of the Male Students at Tulane.

Ms. Jackson and “mylai” — you’re not doing your positions any credit with your behavior here. You’re arguing against positions no one has taken, and appear to be perfectly willing to take someone correcting your blanket statement by claiming THEY made a blanket statement they clearly did not.

No one here has said that rape victims “deserve it”, or that “nice girls don’t get raped”. You invented those positions out of whole cloth, rather than address the argument that was ACTUALLY made:

College-aged women would be well-advised to not get drunk and get alone with men they do not know; they may consent to something they later regret. Or worse — they may be raped in the true, never-offered-consent sense of the term.

This doesn’t mean a man who commits an actual rape is innocent if the victim is drunk; far from it. It means the ambiguous cases can be avoided, and the risk of the real thing reduced.

College-aged women would be well-advised to not get drunk and get alone with men they do not know

Drinking and being alone with a man you don’t know is – unless you are in a Muslim or other backward, primitive world – normal for college age girls. And it is normal for college age men, most of whom are not rapists.

Most student – and post student – social life is ruled out if you rule out those things.

And if a girl does those things and is raped, that is 100% the fault of her rapist. No ambiguity at all.

At least it is in civilised societies.

Strange that Mac Donald and co align themselves with more primitive cultures – especially as such cultures tend not to be white – and we all know what Mac D thinks of blacks.

Apparently you haven’t been reading well enough. As per Heather: “I use the terms “sluttish” and “promiscuous” descriptively, to refer to the type of behavior that leads to the following dilemma, assumed by Columbia’s Go Ask Alice health website to be perfectly normal: A girl suspects that her drunken sexual encounter with a guy ended in intercourse.”

Sluttish? Promiscuous? Sorry, but you don’t win here Rob.

Another area you don’t win in Rob is this: “College-aged women would be well-advised to not get drunk and get alone with men they do not know; they may consent to something they later regret. Or worse — they may be raped in the true, never-offered-consent sense of the term.”

College girls are raped FAR more by men they KNOW, were intimate with prior to him raping her and even friends, than men they don’t know. Those are the statistics stated in every study on the subject of college girl rape. Much of which goes under-reported, also a fact according to every single study.

What a women learns is that every man she meets is a potential rapist. Sad but true. In knowing that, this is a segment of our society that for all intents and purposes is told to fear men. New consent laws add to this conclusion. There are two people in a rape. The raped and the rapist. Increasingly, to the apparent groaning of men, the law is on her side. That being said it is basically up to MEN therefore, to change that preception by NOT raping, not forcing themselves on women and realizing that a drunk girl is not his “green light.” Don’t you think?

All over college campuses, a drunk college girl is not at fault when she is raped – because – the drunk cannot give their consent. Slut, or not.

As per http://www.tulane.edu/~tmar/guys.html
No matter what she drank, wore, or the way she acted, rape is NOT her fault…
[ Do not even get us started on this one. As we said above, women are NEVER responsible for being raped. It doesn't matter how she dresses, how much she drank or how much she provoked and teased you. She does not deserve to be raped. When a women wants to have sex it is her choice when, where and with whom she will do it. Men have the same choice. You can't blame her. Stopping rape is solely in the hands of the male community. ]

Someone forced into involuntary sex deserves all the sympathy in the world, and more, including the benefit of legal process against the aggressor. Someone who willingly gets drunk and in that state of impaired judgement may deserve sympathy, but hse made hser own choice, impaired though it might have been due to other choices. There is no aggressor, and thus nobody to punish.

wrong. drunk people cannot give consent. it comes under the heading of “impaired.” meaning, unable. drunk or not, it is still rape. defense attys cannot use a woman’s intoxication as defense for his client against the allegation of rape. fact is, if she was drunk at the time, the guy’s even more guilty. sorry pal.

The people here talking about this are shamless rape demagogues (femi agi-prop)–who need to be kept at of all power through any means(just on principle)– and idiot conservative white male ameri/brits who can’t solve problems (and who are susceptible to having their arguments created for them by their enemies).

Pretending it has ever been about macdonald is ridiculous. Ridiculous –ie standard america/english gender politcs.

——–
The arguments made by mylai etc (“not obama plz”) are unaddressable. They are typical of feminism and define what western culture _actually is_ –not what white male “patriots”(read romantics /racists) think /pretend it is.

You know what you win at? Failing.
I don’t even think YOU know what you are talking about.

What you really want to do, (i can only guess) clearly by the VERY little that is decipherable in your comments, is this: To claim the old-view right that rape is a direct result of the present “culture” of women’s freedom to be “sluts, to drink, and in-a-sense be free to be themselves.” Amiright? Probably.
That leads me to believe that you think rape is all of a sudden some NEW anomolly. Like old granny’s, and burqa-wearing women, children, students, daughters, nieces, granddaughters, employees, mentally and physically handicapped women never get raped? In FACT, these type of cases are much more prevelant than actual “sluts, whores, prostitutes and other not-nice girls” being raped.

The fact is fp, rape is ALWAYS an act of violence, and power. Every normal mother (YFZ idiots excluded) warms her daughters to be wary of men in some way, shape, or form. Daughters become women who want to be close to men, we like men, we love men and want NOT to believe our mothers. However, considering 1 in 4 will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime by a male, and usually males they know, we gotta always be on guard. Quite frankly, that sucks. Who the heck wants to go through life thinking be afraid. Men are reduced to being thought of as nothing more than animals who’ll attack us. THIS SUCKS. It sucks for us and it should suck for you now, moreso, because not only is it NOT cool to lay blame at the “drunk” “slut”, “provocatively dressed” “cocktease” it just a defense in a oourt of law anymore. WHY? Because our “culture” has caught up with the idea that rape isn’t the RESULT of the aforementioned behaviour of the woman because past history and history of rape clearly shows that men will rape any sort of woman regardless or dress and behaviour.

This revelation bugs men. And it SHOULD. Just not for the reasons it apparently bugs the majority of men on this thread and others because it means that men and some idiot women NOW have to change not only the ridiculous mindset of “she deserved it,” but they (men) actually have to work on themselves in a culture now onto what they have always been capable of. So basically it is up to men to keep themselves out of jail by behaving BETTER. And that means (as it relates to Heather’s article) in the college culture that is today, men should think twice about banging the drunk chick. Or take the chance that she wont remember being banged, not unlike the “girlfriend” experience and taking a chance the girl you’re banging WON’T get pregnant.

The responsibility for having been raped has shifted from the woman and is now solely on the man within this new college culture and the new consent laws and like any NEW thing, it’s not an easy thing to accept for certain backward-thinking people.

I didn’t read your nonsense past the first nutty paragraph. It is beneath responding to item by item (were there lucid items in it); Same for all of your ilk. You simply need to stopped — through _any means_ necessary– on principle.

And you exsist in world of strawmen.

——
Nobody would let the christians come into court or congress and say ‘we need another law against murder cause it says right here in god’s commandments that murder is bad’.

People would say murder is already illegal and this push to make it ‘more illegal’ is simply a vulgar power display by the unchecked crackpot community. Well that’s what feminism is (when it isn’t male competition over females using “I can defer quicker than you can therefore I’m the alpha male bird-brain”.)

Drinking and being alone with a man you don’t know is – unless you are in a Muslim or other backward, primitive world – normal for college age girls. And it is normal for college age men, most of whom are not rapists.

Most student – and post student – social life is ruled out if you rule out those things.

Ms. Jackson, you were answering a comment from Rob Crawford, that “[c]ollege-aged women would be well-advised to not get drunk and get alone with men they do not know.” Note the word he used – “drunk.” Most people interpret that word as meaning that the person has imbibed to such an extent that their functioning is severely impaired. Thus the origin of the terms, “blind drunk” and “falling down drunk.”

Most social life continues quite well in the absence of drunkenness, even in college. Your assertion otherwise indicates that you have a very distorted view of not only college students, but society as a whole. Alcohol is a part of our culture that most people use responsibly. Post-student social life would not be shut down by the absence of drunkenness. You must move in some strange, disfunctional social circles if you believe otherwise.

But of course, you don’t. You know very well that society would not collapse in the absence of drunkenness – you just wanted to ridicule someone who didn’t agree with you.

It would be a demented person, indeed, who believed that voluntarily incapacitating oneself is a brilliant idea. You’d advise against people (male or female, let’s not be sexist here) willingly getting dead drunk in public, wouldn’t you? Just as a general principle? If you answer in the affirmative, then why do you so aggressively argue against the concept that it isn’t the brightest idea for college age females to get drunk in the presence of college-age men?

That the aggressor is ultimately at fault for any assault, robbery, rape or murder isn’t the point – the point is that avoiding the crime is preferable to seeing the criminal punished, especially if the crime is murder, and one is not around to see justice done.

And if he’s as drunk as she is? Can he cry “Rape!” too? Are they both rapists?

If she’s passed out drunk, or about to pass out, you have a point, though if she’s trying to take his clothes off it’s more than consent. But if they are both disinhibited but functional, you’re criminalizing “a loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou.”

Mylai makes this breathtaking assertion: “What a women learns is that every man she meets is a potential rapist. Sad but true.”

This single statement underscores the inane hysteria that the radical gender feminst cottage rape industry is attempting to manufacture. In fact, this assertion, which of course is posited with no support beyond your serene ipse dixit, is laughable and indicates that the writer is in serious need of counseling. If that vapid, idiotic statement is correct, then I assure you it is at least equally true that what a man learns is that every woman he meets is a potential false accuser or sexual assault.

In fact, the vast majority of men and women get along just fine without fearing either rape or false accusations of rape. In some psychotic zeal to foment a gender war, the writer overlook one simple fact: outside the radical gender feminist cult, people ain’t buying their lies.

That the aggressor is ultimately at fault for any assault, robbery, rape or murder isn’t the point – the point is that avoiding the crime is preferable to seeing the criminal punished, especially if the crime is murder, and one is not around to see justice done.

I think Americans are more prissy and puritanical about alcohol (and other stuff) than Britons. Getting pissed – whether you’re a student or not – is fun. It doesn’t give men an licence to rape and it doesn’t turn rape into non-rape.

You talk about the aggressor, that is the rapist being ultimately at fault. To that extent, you are far more compassionate to college girls than Mac Donald and many of her supporters. For these people, if the victim is drunk, or has behaved in certain ways, there is no rape. Mac Donald has no sympathy whatsoever for victims who don’t conform to the Stepford-wifey-good-girl thing. If they are raped it’s their fault – worse, their account is negated and they are scheming liars.

Here’s a novel idea- why don’t men watch what they drink so they don’t rape? Or why aren’t “rape industrialists” telling them to? Why isn’t Mac Donald telling them to?

Because boys will be boys, that’s why. And Mac Donald ingratiates herself with men who are happy with this double standard.

They, for a while, tried to couch [the insanity] in what they were ostensibly talking about (macdonald and olde chivalry lense –which is _pro female and anti male_ btw, and I’m against it). But the more they were antagonized the more clear their real agenda became: insanity and vengence against mankind for not being booger-eaters, hiding in [salicious throbbings] and aspiring towards unconstitutional over-seeing of all but them.

It won’t be stopped until it’s stopped by force, for the motivation and narrative is not motivated by actual real things. There is no amount of appeasing “or solving the problems” (which men instinctually, non-thinkingly love to do as mating display) that will make it stop.

“”"”"”"”"”
The people here talking about this are shamless rape demagogues –who need to be kept out of all power through any means(just on principle).

Here’s a novel idea- why don’t men watch what they drink so they don’t rape? Or why aren’t “rape industrialists” telling them to? Why isn’t Mac Donald telling them to?

It seems we’re in agreement that the “rape industrialists” are not interested in reducing the incidence of rape – either the real rate, or the inflated rate they like to cite. As for telling men to behave themselves, I’m all for that, too. I’d like to see both sexes act more responsibly.

I think Americans are more prissy and puritanical about alcohol (and other stuff) than Britons. Getting pissed – whether you’re a student or not – is fun. It doesn’t give men an licence to rape and it doesn’t turn rape into non-rape.

Getting drunk may be fun, but it must be recognized that it results in diminished capacity. People who voluntarily compromise their abilities should take measures to ensure their safety. For an alcohol-related example, people who go out for drinks are encouraged to have a designated driver so that the drinkers do not become drunk drivers.

As njcommuter writes, the situation can be more ethically complicated than a sober person taking advantage of a drunk person. What if they’re both equally drunk? Is this like a double negative, and each parties’ lack of informed consent cancels the other out? What if they’re at different levels of drunkenness? When regret/realization sinks in, hours after the fact, how in heaven’s name is the law to figure out which party was how drunk at what time, and exactly what were the effects on comprehension and consent for each?

Toss in conflicting firsthand accounts of the events in question – which may very well be both parties’ honest recollections. “He said, she said” becomes “he said, she said, he was drunk, she was buzzed, and neither one remembers everything that happened.” How can this mess possibly be sorted out?

Is it best for society to make some attempt, and to label the participants as ‘victim’ and ‘rapist,’ however accurately or inaccurately? Or is it preferable for the two parties to accept that both made mistakes, both acted irresponsibly, and modify their future behavior so as not to put themselves in a like situation?

what a silly discussion this is. no one condones rape. as for the legal aspect, voluntary self-intoxication is sufficient only to preclude specific-intent crimes – rape being one of them. therefore, a defendant’s intoxication, if proven to have caused the alleged rape, does in fact preclude a rape conviction; the lesser charge would be sexual assault of some kind. for comparison, acts committed under the influence of involuntary intoxication – someone slips you a mickey – are reviewed under the jurisdiction’s standard for insanity – generally, some version of “i wouldn’t have done it but for the intoxication, your honor,” in which case (if proven) they are found not guilty. these are well-established and reasonable legal doctrines applied routinely every day in thousands of American courts, all for the purpose of deterring and punishing rapists. there is no ambiguity as to where society and its legal framework stands with respect to the crime of rape. in fact, a woman’s past is only fair game – under “rape shield laws” – to prove a specific relationship with the defendant, or if the prosecutor raises the issue. her present behavior is admissible only to prove or disprove consent. every benefit is given to the woman in question, as is reasonable and good.

but the deeper question is constantly evaded by jackson and her friends. the question is whether girls’ behavior might somehow contribute to the increase in frequency of legitimate rape claims. i don’t see how that could be answered in the negative, when everyone has at least the experience of going to the mall and witnessing how 12 year old girls dress like strippers, or youtube videos of teenage girls, to say nothing of comparing the behavior of one’s daughters with that of the behavior of their own sisters or female friends when they were young. plainly, something has changed, and it is not male behavior, which, as the legal doctrines cited above attest, has always been well-known and consequently well-controlled to the extent of the law. male boorishness and sexual aggression has for a very long time been the subject of much scrutiny and control in our society, and it would be futile to deny this.

but it should not be surprising that along with, and probably prior to, the emergence of a new set of more sexually provocative female expectations in dress and behavior ought to be preceded or attended by its public ideologues providing strenuous advocacy and defense of such changes. it should not be surprising either that these ideologues – whether themselves adherents to the new ethos or not conforming in practice but simply in imagination – should employ rhetorial redirectio and evasion such as demonstrated here by jackson and mylai, among others. the most bizarre thing about it though is the character of the victory of the revolution they seek to defend. where are the more than social and more than occasional consequences for female behavior? after all, it’s not as though women are somehow complete moral beings upon birth – they too are educated according to social norms. but who suffers in a legal way, with the coercion of the state, for wearing outfits only slightly less revealing than bikinis to a bar where everyone’s consuming huge amounts of alcohol? i mean, what exactly are you guys trying to defend against here – even the merest shred of denunciation, from someone like Heather McDonald, who probably writes for a magazine with a circulation in the low thousands, and occasionally writes for websites like pajamas – not exactly media juggernauts? i don’t get it – do you guys really think that women’s behavior has absolutely no affect on the way others treat them? it’s almost unbelieveable that you can’t at least agree that showing a Lot of skin, doing body shots – i mean, have you guys even been to campus bars in the last ten years? you can’t possibly believe that all this doesn’t result in a net increase in rapes, due to things which are at least partly within the control of the victim? is that really such an enormous claim to make? honestly, i really think you’ve chosen the wrong pursuit – you’re really not very good even petty moral philosophers. please, choose another hobby.

The assertion that all men are potential rapists comes not from me or some vast feminazi conspiracy to defame all men. It comes from research that continually tries to understand why men rape.

Why they don’t simply ALWAYS choose to rape the girls who apparently “deserve it” by dressing provocatively or get wasted at a party. The general population wants to believe that rape is only reduced to those women. It isn’t. Men have raped and will continue to rape any type of women. They will rape family members as well as strangers. They rape infants, toddlers, teens, all the way to grandmothers.

That being said, and with the US gov’t statistics on rape stating that 1 in 4 females at some point in her life will be sexually assaulted would leave any reasonal person thinking – what the hell is wrong with men? It clearly isn’t in the way a female dresses or acts. It is something biological and the idea that acting sluttishly will get a female raped any more than her 10 year old sister is simply just a culture of men and some women wanting to shift blame where there is just little cause to do so.

All indications through research, gov’t statistics and the way every culture attempts to seperate males and females are basically making the statement that men, either by biology, psychological misfirings or societal cues such as “boys will be boys” or all the above are all capable of rape.

It’s an issue of sex and power and it’d be benefical to men to get a clue that it’s not the girls fault.

Ask yourself this, how is it that females from infant to 80 year old grandmothers get raped? 1 in 4 females over their lifetime will be the victim of a sexual assault. Most of those rapes occur within families or with people the female knows. Those are the gov’t's statistics not mine and not some feminazi cabal. Now do you really think that females ask to be raped or assaulted due to their behaviour? You blame the victim and excuse the behaviour of men by doing so. This thinking perpetuates the idea that in certain instances it is ok for a man to rape a woman. You also take away the freedom from the female to dress the ways that’s comfortable to her or have fun in the way SHE wants.

The issue isn’t the female. The issue is, WHY do men rape ANY female. That is something that you need to be asking and that in and of itself is the answer to seeing that rape ends.

>US gov’t statistics on rape stating that 1 in 4 females at some point in her life will be sexually assaulted

Lie.

Not to mention the whole premice coming from their mouths is blood libel that could not survive the “reverse the targets” test.

——
Also studying, in this way, male sexualit… um … err, I really don’t know what to call it.. is only good if society is going to some day default over to “‘penetration’ of a female is an ‘oppression’ [because it reconfirms for her and him and society that she is indeed utterly a female]“.

In other words the whole concept of dissecting and denouncing male sexuality (over and above previous generations’ agreement that some brutes/wackos[for whatever nature nurture reasons] are pathologically ‘outside the pale’) is a slippery slope snowball. It shouldn’t be discussed by females at all, for they are not honest brokers in that debate– even with themselves.

Btw, females who harp on this issue (like mylai) are _rape-fetishists_. Trust me. So right there it shows how complicated what were tinkering with here really is.

In other words, it –like all feminism philosophy in general– is a very very complicated thing that the western males have basically forfeited on (and the other culture males have gotten wrong –though they temporarilly hide that fact in their failed economies). Thereby leaving the dualistic and not honest with herself, unfair and eternally childish female –ever _instinctually compeled_ to antagonize and convolute– as the “squicky wheel”, controlling society’s etiquette (once again, time immemorial). To what end?

——
“Educating a female is simply giving the viper more venom.” The Greeks said it for good reason; but the Northern European needs to learn this lesson for himself.

“Educating a female is simply giving the viper more venom.” The Greeks said it for good reason; but the Northern European needs to learn this lesson for himself.

you reveal yourself moron.

you are typical of the males who wish to keep blame of rape off the male but the “boys will be boys” excuse for harrassment, assault or any number of thing leading to why men sit and rot in Jails all over the country.

Because you are either too stubborn or too stupid (my guess is both) you fail to realize that a culture in which sticks with that old mentality is just what perpetuates rape – which in turn keeps your fellow men in jail. You just do not get it.

By continuing to take the premise that men cannot control themselves not should they because of their biology puts both sexes at risk.

Answer the question. Why do men rape? If you don’t know, I sure as fck don’t but you know what? Someone ought to find out.

Almost all violent rape is about power, not sex. That’s why old women are raped. The rape of children is an apparent exception, but people who rape children are not out in bars trying to make drunken hookups.

All sex is about power. The females understand very well that all sex is –and indeed all other social interactions in society are — about power.

They have an edge on most males in that key self-awarness catagory. Meanwhile most males are dunces who conform to bascially
whatever etiquette parameters the females of the last generation created for them.

By accepting the belief that some sex isn’t about power and some is, we have played into the hands of snowballing insanity
(ie feminism). An insanity which is motivated by female instinctual desire to antagonize males –and ultimatley, indeed, to
escape the bio determinism of female-ness all together.

(“femaleness”, at least and especially for mammals = emasculation of stunted creature that is penetrated and used as vector for parasite.)

Again I say, ['allow feminism to shape any debate anywhere,] to what end’? What’s the end game?

If you as men don’t like patho “brutes” then you advocate eugenics not “libertation of females”. And most patho sex is single
fem parent vectored and unique to modern western culture. So if you don’t like it, you advocate stopping western female ‘power’ not
liberating females.

=========
=========
Talking about ‘baby rape’ (shark attack) and “he said she said” drunking “girls gone wild sex” is all front for other
underlying things people are actually expressing…

-female desire to anatognise /tease. Other species’ females might pee everywhere but humans have words. Female humans
antagonise with words. It serves some evolutionry purpose to keep the males off base and competing.

-female complaints are not about real things: they are instincts like bird calls; it is female desire to throw out feelers to
see if males are “biting”.

-female duality. During some phases of her estress she desires the very male types she wants outlawed (unconstitutionally) in
other phases. (This make both genders non compatible and unfulfilled.) During the other phases she is angry reactionary; angry at herself for her own submissive desires. (“she is not an honest self aware broker of real solutions to real problems”.)

———
All of the above made more dangerous by a power vacumm created in the male group…

-Male benchwarmers triangulating with females against better males. Ie chivalry. (‘Equality’ is just modern chivalry made
more dangerous by industry/tech snowball creating new opportunities.) Males use pro-female belief and similar vibe as
grendades against each other in their rooster against rooster mating battles.

Low males have been so successful over the millenia of pulling down better males (who the females are more attracted to and
ultimately triggered into submission by) that the females are unfulfilled and able to easily exploit the victorious infantile males left
over.

-Male stockholm syndrome. Feminism is the priestly caste in charge of society (and before that its historic equivalent). Males can sense this and want to be in its good graces. So the males defer to the notion females are oppressed by something and then act as toadies. “trustees of the prison”

-male instinct to solve problems as mating dance. (This is also instinct to be in good graces of “female power”.) Male
doesn’t care whether the thing she is complaining about makes any sense to another catagory of his male brain.

——–
This is very complicated and profound stuff that man inherently doesn’t have a vocabulary and eye for addressing. The above of mine is just open meanderings (though fairly correct); it could be added to and abridged.

Did you ever stop to wonder why there is a double standard? Maybe our ancestors knew something. Maybe the double standard is there for a reason. Maybe it is there to prevent rapes, unwanted babies, STDs, depression, disrespect for one sex. Maybe the double standard is worthy to be there. Maybe if you thought of all the problems the double standard stopped it might make it worth keeping.

Mike – first of all, sluttish is a loaded word. It is only ever used of females
M Jackson.

that’s because that is what the word means. The accepted denotative meaning is a sexually promiscuous woman (Merriam-Webster) or “a woman of a low or loose character; a bold or impudent girl; a hussy, jade.” (OED, 2nd edition).

If you wanted to use a male term you could use these: a person who lacks the ability or chooses not to exercise a power of discernment to order their affairs, such as a cad, rake, or womanizer.

so now you want to change the entire english language because some word meanings offend you?

A girl that goes out gets drunks and sleeps with someone she doesn’t know is a slut. If she excepts gifts or money she is a whore. A guy that does that is a womenizer, a bastard, a loser choice your term but he is not a slut.

If these men don’t want to be “raped” they shouldn’t get drunk, take their clothes off, go to bed with girls they don’t know, etc etc etc.

I’m waiting to see all the Mac Donald supporters say this. It would be consistent, after all.

And, in Mac Donald speak, men who claim to be raped, are probably making it up. 50% of them are making it up, on Planet Mac D.

Let’s hear it: men, stop being so sluttish.

If a man drinks, takes off his clothes, go to bed with girls they don’t know and gets raped it his is fault. If they claim rape then they would be laughed at by other men. they would be looked down upon by other men. They would be treated as freaks by other men. Now if a sober man is walking his dog and a women runs up behind him with a gun and then proceeds to rape him that is different. what is hard to understand? a person’s actions defines the resulting actions.

Unseen – thank you for your honesty. At least you admit to being in favour of the double standard. Mac Donald does not. I can’t quite see why. She would have plenty of support Western men and even some Western women, and, of course, universal support from Muslim and other more backward, non-Western cultures.

Maybe the double standard is there for a reason. Maybe it is there to prevent rapes,STDs, depression, disrespect for one sex.

And it does such wonderful job in Muslim countries, doesn’t it? In Saudi Arabia, for example. Rape victims are lashed or stoned there, rather than just dismissed and condemned by people like yourself and MacDonald. Perhaps that’s the answer. As for STDs, Saudi Arabia has a huge problem with AIDS. The men avail themselves of prostitutes, which the double standard fully allows them to do.

I agree that there is “disrespect for one sex” – the female sex, although “disrespect” doesn’t begin to cover it.

And, of course, the one in four standard is unsupportable even by the governement study that off-handedly tossed off this lie.

Let’s not forget that upwards of half of all women who claim to have been raped lie about it. So if all men are potential rapists, all women are potential liars about rape. That is fact. In “Until Proven Innocent,” the widely praised (even by the New York Times, which the book skewers) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case, Stuart Taylor and Prof. K.C. Johnson explain that “[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent of rape claims are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book Against Our Will, is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half of all rape claims are false.” The authors methodically examine the evidence to reach this conclusion.

These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half of all rape claims are false

I haven’t read this book, and its “methodical” examination of “a wealth of empirical data”. It seems to go against other research that shows rape is underreported rather than overreported. Obviously it is eagerly seized on as Gospel truth by Mac Donald.

However, if it is correct, and – worst case scenario – half of all rape claims are false, this implies that half of them are not false. Mac Donald, on the other hand, implies that all rape claims are probably false unless it is by a stranger in a dark alley.

I have been quite astonished by the embrace of the double standard and the outright misogyny shown by the vast majority of commenters on this thread and on my original article.

Perhaps such attitudes are more widespread among Americans that among Britons. I just assumed that fairness – that is rejection of the double standard – was a given.

1. “The weak men have simply over the generations of their success, emboldended females.”

2. “The root probelm is the success of the weak men ascending. This is otherwise called “progress”. It used to be called just plain civilization and religion.”

Interesting, if not also quite frightening. the “root problem” is “emboldened females” and “weak men.” And what would your remedy be to this terrible problem? A society not unlike Warren Jeffs at the YFZ ranch I suppose? Don’t educate us beyond the 8th grade?

I see the translations of this type of rhetoric by the above type of male:

1. “all women should have stayed barefoot and pregnant because it was better for men.”
2. “all women should have stayed barefoot and pregnant because it was better for men.”

This atttitude is precisely the cause of the rise of rabid feminazism which men like fp and others, hate.

How these men STILL do not get that the feminist movement, they so hate and despise, came about as a DIRECT RESULT of [past] male treatment (as well as obvious present attitudes) of women – is utterly remarkable. The fault of your discontent lay directly with you. It was right to come about. Just as civil rights for blacks was right to come about.

The entire issue is one of not “weak men” and “emboldening” women but one of mutual respect and consideration. Backward thinking men want both yet see no reason to give it.

I haven’t read this book, and its “methodical” examination of “a wealth of empirical data”. It seems to go against other research that shows rape is underreported rather than overreported. Obviously it is eagerly seized on as Gospel truth by Mac Donald.

Your link doesn’t work. But, assuming its arguments are true, and conceptually simple, the “high ratio of false reports” is seized on by Mac Donald and made much of, and the underreporting is ignored, as is the “high ratio” of reports which, by default, must be true.

Even if it is conclusively proved (which I doubt) that many, or half, or whatever, rape cliamants are liars, this is not what Mac Donald implies – she implies that all of them are false. (Except for dark-alley-stranger rapes, which she allows can happen, because they happen to “nice” girls.)

Exactly how does Ms. Mac Donald imply that only dark-alley rapes can happen? I don’t see that in her writing at all. She never discusses the relative merits of various rape circumstances, whether it’s perpetrated by a stranger, husband, or acquaintance. She makes what I agree is an unimpeachable argument: if the rape industry really believe that drunken hookups are “rape,” then it should be willing to advise the likely victims (women) to do everything possible to avoid this “rape.” i.e., avoid drunken hookups. What is so controversial about this?

Where is this double standard that Jackson so adamantly insists is in Mac Donald’s writing? She never explicitly endorses any such thing, and any implication that you see has got to be tenuous at best since the majority of commenters here have missed it. (I am assuming their good faith, unlike Jackson, who immediately assumes that anyone not in total agreement with her is a “knuckle dragging redneck”. See Jackson’s blog at http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/14418
)

Where is this double standard that Jackson so adamantly insists is in Mac Donald’s writing? She never explicitly endorses any such thing, and any implication that you see has got to be tenuous at best since the majority of commenters here have missed it.

Far from missing it, the majority of commenters here have endorsed it. And yes, I regard people who believe in the sexual double standard as knuckle-dragging rednecks. It went out with the ark and is now fit only for Muslims and other primitives.

At the risk of repeating myself:

First of all, sluttish is a loaded word. It is only ever used of females, and MacDonald only uses it of females here. “Thuggish” or “boorish” are not nice words, true, but they do not refer to promiscuity – a promiscuity which for Mac Donald turns rape into non-rape. And men’s “boorishness” is testosterone-fuelled – ie they can’t help themselves, especially when encouraged by “slutty” women.

Second, although Mac Donald uses the word “thuggish” in passing, her advice on avoiding “rape” (which she doesn’t believe happens anyway) is not directed at men at all. There is nowhere – nowhere at all – any hint that men should, or even can, change their behaviour. Boys will be boys and girls must fit in round this.

[...]

[W]ords denoting promiscuity are used only of women. Advice relating to promiscuous or “slutty” behaviour is given only to women. Men’s behaviour is just the way it is, with a hint that if women didn’t act so slutty, men would respect them more.

First of all, sluttish is a loaded word. It is only ever used of females, and MacDonald only uses it of females here.

So the complaint is that Mac Donald uses a word that is used exclusively in relation to women, in relation to women?

“Thuggish” or “boorish” are not nice words, true, but they do not refer to promiscuity – a promiscuity which for Mac Donald turns rape into non-rape.

Where is this phantom implication of Mac Donald’s that promiscuity turns rape into non-rape?

Second, although Mac Donald uses the word “thuggish” in passing, her advice on avoiding “rape” (which she doesn’t believe happens anyway) is not directed at men at all. There is nowhere – nowhere at all – any hint that men should, or even can, change their behaviour.

To take Jackson’s mugging example from above (far, far above), I can’t imagine that a pamphlet advising white people the steps they can take to protect against muggings, being improved in any way by also criticizing the would-be muggers.

Why should Mac Donald, when she writes about the campus rape industry and its relation to women, include men in the discussion at all? Men’s behavior in this case is a complete non sequiter: other than to make Jackson feel good, I don’t see the point to including it.

Boys will be boys and girls must fit in round this.

Jackson is drawing a conclusion here that is not supported by the evidence. Back to the mugging example – if I were to suggest that not getting drunk in public is a good way to reduce chances of being mugged, it does not follow that I therefore am of the opinion that “muggers will be muggers,” or that their behavior should not be addressed in some way. There may be other avenues for this that I believe are more appropriate and/or effective.

Mac Donald not addressing male behavior may mean any number of things: she may think that male behavior has been addressed adequately elsewhere; or that it is extraneous to the topic of her column. I don’t know, and neither does Jackson.

Double standard. Guilty as charged.

Convicted by evidence that exists only in Mary Jackson’s imagination! The shame!

If, as Mac Donald says, what we are dealing with is not rape, but “drunken hookups”, then men are every bit as responsible for them as women. If drunken hookups lead to rape, or “rape”, then men’s behaviour needs to change as much, if not more, than women’s.

The difference from the mugger analogy is that all muggers are muggers, but only a few men are rapists. Educating men’s behaviour can change it. Certain types of rape, for example in marriage, are no longer acceptable for civilised men. In the past, and in the Muslim world today, child rape for example would not be seen as rape because Islam allows child “marriage”.

Of course some men would be impervious to any message telling them to be careful about what they drink, that no means no etc. But Mac Donald doesn’t even see any need to try to change them.

“Sluttish” is a word applied only to females. But it shouldn’t be if men act slutty. There isn’t, however, a pejorative word for men’s promiscuity, because it isn’t – by Mac Donald and most posters here -seen as reprehensible.

Over and over they say “The boys need to control themselves”. The boys do NOT “need to control themselves”. We are talking about drunken ass grab in female controled hooligan situations (“campus drunk date rape”). Remember that.

You types don’t get to keep moving the goal post of what male pathology is, each generation. That is the real motivation behind resistance to you types.

It doesn’t matter what macdonald and other conservatives say. People have been using BS arguements for so many generations now they don’t know how to speak truth. They just feel and then lie tactically.

—
…Liberalism –ie pro-female society control–advocates the ‘mosh pit’ (or holliganizing campus), against the wishes of the actual right (read fascists –not the christians dunces and profitiers, who are nothing but cannon fodder for the ‘left’). Then the fems –the key of liberalism — (and staffers) claim the males in the mosh pit are ‘pathological’ for moshing with the females –who antagonistically ‘demanded’ a right to be in it ‘casue “they were equal”.

—–
…Either the genders are going to ‘waltz’ or ‘tango’. If the liberal created goal is tango, the boys are not “pathological criminals” for thrusting back with the steely browed latina hussies. This is something that liberalism — ie feminism–denies and the christians are too stupid to get and frame properly.

—-
The reason this isn’t understood is becasue the modern male –the victorius survivor of centuries and centuries of war to get rid of the better males–is a dunce and infantile goofball.

You did indeed prove your point. Props. Mac Donald has issues as do the men at PJ Media who rail against something their own beligerence toward women created.

There’s hope yet though, in finding that there’s a growing number of men’s groups on various US campus’ who DO get it.
1. rape is never the fault of women. Drunk or not.
2. that men DO NEED to control themselves.
3. THEY alone can prevent an allegation of rape and posible jail sentence (for themselves) by doing just that.

____________________________

fp,
“The boys do NOT “need to control themselves.”

I am astounded you even have a pc let alone know how to operate one and I
can only imagine the strain with which you had to tax your one brain cell to conclude that very revealing statement as to a good reason why rape still exists. Good job dude. The evolution train definitely left you sitting on your thumbs long ago dude.